Between vs The State Of Himachal
2021 Latest Caselaw 4065 HP

                                              1

       IN    THE     HIGH     COURT OF        HIMACHAL          PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                      .
                        ON THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021





                                         BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA





      CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No. 1961 OF 2019
      Between:
      SMT. PHOOL MATI,
      WIFE OF SH. PREM BAHADUR,





      R/O KHARAPATHAR,
      TEHSIL JUBBAL,
      DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.,
      PRESENTLY SERVING AS A BELDAR IN
      AGRICULTURE FARM KHARAPATHAR,
      TEHSIL JUBBAL,

      DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.

                                                                           ....PETITIONER


      (BY MR. A.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE)



      AND




    1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
       PRADESH THROUGH THE





       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       (AGRICULTURE) WITH
       HEADQUARTER AT SHIMLA,
       SHIMLA, H.P.





    2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
       WITH HEADQUARTER AT
       BOILEAUGANJ, SHIMLA-5.

                                                                    ....RESPONDENTS
      (BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND
      MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL
      ADVOCATES GENERAL WITH MR.
      NAREDER     THAKUR,     DEPUTY
      ADVOCATE GENERAL)


      Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.


      This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:




                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:56:34 :::CIS
                                         2

                                    ORDER

.

Petitioner, herein was engaged on daily wage basis in the

year 1989 and since then, she has been regularly, without there being

any interruption, rendering her services in the Department of

Agriculture, State of Himachal Pradesh. Since despite having her

completed regular eight years' service as daily wager in the Department

she was not granted work charge status and her services were not

regularized in terms of policies framed by the Government for

regularization from time to time, she approached this Court by way of

CWP No. 3260 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on

5.9.2012, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide her

case in light of judgment dated 27.7.2009, passed by this Court in

CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled as "Man Singh v. the State of HP and

Ors."

2. Though pursuant to aforesaid order, petitioner herein filed

representation to the Department concerned for granting benefit in

terms of judgment dated 5.9.2012, passed by this Court in CWP No.

3260 of 2011, but her such prayer was rejected on the ground that she

has not submitted any document in support of her claim. Vide order

dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure P-2), Director of Agriculture, Himachal

Pradesh, while rejecting representation of the petitioner observed in the

order that petitioner does not know her date of birth and as per

regularization policy of the State Government, she does not fulfill the

criteria of eight years and as such, cannot claim any parity with the

case of Man Singh in CWP No. 1594 of 2008. In the aforesaid order,

.

respondent No.2, recorded that Smt. Phoolmati, who is having

nationality of Nepal has not submitted any document as per policy and

R&P rules. Besides above, Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh in

order observed that R&P Rules for the post of Beldar Class-IV, in the

Department of Agriculture, provide that candidate must be a citizen of

India and since applicant is neither a citizen of India nor the eligibility

certificate has been issued by the competent authority in her favour,

she cannot be considered for regularization as her case is not similar to

the case of "Man Singh". In the aforesaid background, petitioner has

approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for

following main relief:

"i) That Annexure P-2 may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date from which

the services of other similarly situated persons were regularized who were appointed w.e.f

1.1.1998 on daily wage basis with all the benefits incidental thereof."

3. Aforesaid claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the

respondents by way of filing reply, wherein though they have admitted

that the petitioner was engaged as casual laborer at Potato

Development Station Kharapathar under the control of Deputy Director

of Agriculture, Shimla, but have contended that since she did not

complete 240 days in each calendar year till 1998, her prayer for grant

of work charge status cannot be considered prior to the year 1998.

Details of mandays chart placed on record alongwith reply clearly

reveal that till the year, 1998, petitioner though worked in the

.

department w.e.f. 1985, but not completed 240 days in a calendar year,

however, after 1998, till her regularization, in the year, 2018, she

continuously worked for 240 days in each calendar year.

4. As per statement made by Mr. Narender Thakur, learned

Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to him

by the Director (Agriculture) Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated

5.5.2021, which is taken on record, petitioner stands regularized in

the department vide order dated 20.3.2018 and pursuant to the

aforesaid order, petitioner joined the department on regular basis on

13.3.2018 and now, she after having attained age of superannuation

i.e. 60 years, has retired from service on 31.8.2020. Since there is no

dispute inter-se parties that daily wage labourer is entitled to be

granted work charge status after completion of eight years regular

service from the date of initial appointment, petitioner, who, though

had joined in the year, 1985, but rendered service of 240 days in each

calendar year w.e.f. 1999, ought to have been granted work charge

status w.e.f. 31.12.2007, when she had completed eight years

uninterrupted service w.e.f. 1999 with 240 days in each calendar year.

However fact remains that in the case at hand, aforesaid benefit never

came to be accorded in favour of the petitioner, rather she, without

there being any fault of her, was provided the benefit of regularization

after an inordinate delay of 19 years. As per policy framed by State

from time to time, services of the daily wage employee are required to

be regularized on completion of eight years daily wage service with 240

.

days in each calendar year. Since in the case at hand, petitioner had

rendered 240 days service in a calendar year as daily wager

uninterruptedly w.e.f. 1999 till 2007, she ought to have been granted

work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2007 and her services should have been

also regularized w.e.f. that date.

5. Another ground as has been raised by the respondents

while rejecting the case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner

failed to furnish requisite documents i.e. eligibility certificate, her claim

could not be considered for regularization, however, such plea deserves

outright rejection because as per judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of this court in CWP No. 1594 of 2008, titled Man Singh v.

State of HP, it is duty of the department to provide eligibility

certificate. Moreover, eligibility certificate is required for regularization

not for grant of work charge status, however, in the case at hand,

respondent department denied rightful claim of the petitioner for work

charge status without there being any plausible reason. Now since

respondents have themselves regularized service of the petitioner w.e.f.

2018, meaning thereby, petitioner must have handed over the eligibility

certificate to the department and if it is so, she is entitled to such

benefit w.e.f. the date when she had completed eight years regular

service as daily wager with 240 days in each calendar year from the

date of her initial appointment. Mere submission of eligibility

certificate in the year, 2018 by the petitioner cannot be a ground to

deny the benefit which had actually accrued to her in the year, 2007.

.

Since respondent-department after being satisfied that the petitioner is

eligible to be regularized, has already granted her regularization in the

year, 2018, non-furnishing of eligibility certificate, if any, in the year,

2007 cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner to claim

regularization w.e.f. 2007, when she had completed eight years daily

wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. Leaving everything

aside, there is/was no requirement, if any, for the petitioner to submit

eligibility certificate as far as grant of work charge status is concerned,

to which, she had definitely become entitled in the year, 2007.

6. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made

herein above, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed

to grant work charge status to the petitioner from the date she had

completed eight years daily wage service with 240 days in each

calendar year from the date of her initial appointment. Respondents

shall also grant regularization to the petitioner from the date when she

had completed eight years subject to availability of the vacancy,

however petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits from

the date of filing of the petition in the year 2011 i.e. CWP No. 3260 of

2011. In the aforesaid terms, present petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.

    24th August, 2021                               (Sandeep Sharma),
         (manjit)                                          Judge